Balloon Juice » Can’t have both: "Conservatives and libertarians can seat as many round tables as they care to, but they can’t dodge this simple truth: if a fertilized egg has constitutional rights, women cannot have equal rights with men."
'via Blog this'
When a person (male or female) elects to have intercourse, they should be mature enough to accept the possibility of a child as a result of it. If one does not kill the rapist, why would one kill the innocent child produced in that case? If there is a medical complication, who is to determine the worth of the life of the expectant mother over that of the child growing within?
ReplyDeleteIf one can be prosecuted for destroying an eagle's nest, how can we not do the same for human beings??
No, I'm not being inflammatory. More thinking out loud. These are questions to which I do not have a definitive answer.
Deena, you assume that abortion is something that is treated lightly and in my experience it is not.
ReplyDeleteYou assume that life begins at conception and your thinking out loud is merely making my point about the logical conclusion of that belief. I don't think that you are being inflammatory, merely honest and I appreciate it! I do, however, think you are dead wrong.
For purpose of discussion, let's say that a fertilized egg is only a potential human being, and not a life. As a country, we protect habitats, nests, and eggs of endangered species. Obviously humans are not endangered, but why are potential human beings not protected at least as well as animals and plants?
ReplyDeleteThis means (potential) women and men do not even have the same rights as (potential) animals and plants. I certainly believe we should protect the environment; we only have one planet (and God placed us as caretakers of it).
And, to take it one step further, how as a society can we condemn taking the life of an elderly person who has lived long, and no longer wishes to live (due to quality of life and illness); but defend the taking of a potential human who has no choice in the matter, and has not had a chance to live? (Not that I support euthanasia any more than I support abortion.)
I actually do support voluntary euthanasia ... but that is another conversation :)
ReplyDeleteI think that the difference is that in general we protect the lives of ACTUAL people over POTENTIAL people.
I also think that it is a bit disingenuous to put conservation of wildlife habitat in the same category because as far as I know there haven't been too many people killed as a result of not chopping down old growth forest.
To me it comes down to choices that we make and we can choose to protect wildlife and there can be a choice made between the life of a mother and fetus (and no I don't want to be the one to make that choice, it should be the actual people involved that make that decision) but to say that potential child has rights that trump those of an actual person strikes me as an odd stance to take because it seems to remove agency from a woman the moment she becomes pregnant.
One has choices and consequences each day. Some are minor: If I have a chili dog, I risk heartburn. Some are major: If I kill my neighbor, I risk going to jail and possibly death penalty.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that intercourse, resulting in the possible creation of a child lies toward the major end of that choice/consequence scale. After the action has been taken, the choice has been made, and consequences occur.
To me, a potential child (fetus) is more than a growth, tumor, or biological process to be removed. Forty weeks of inconvenience for a woman does not trump the rights of a possible human being. We are not removing the woman's rights, but asking only that she bear the consequences of her action. Very few women in the US die from complications of childbirth. After the birth, should she so choose, she may give the baby up for adoption. With DNA testing, the father should be able to be found and perhaps held liable for the financial aspects, so he has some inconvenience in the matter as well.
It is easier, and quite a bit cheaper, just to destroy the life at the outset, and be done with it. We don't even do that to convicted criminals, or criminals caught in the act; why would it be okay to do to a potential child?